Dosimetric Evaluation of High-Dose-Rate Interstitial Brachytherapy Boost Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer

Abstract

US-based treatment plans for HDR prostate implants based on the real positions of catheters provided acceptable dose distributions. In the majority of the cases, the doses to urethra and rectum were kept below the defined tolerance levels. For rectum, the dose in reference points correlated well with dose-volume parameters. For urethra dose characterization, the use of D1 volumetric parameter is recommended.

A comparison of inverse optimization algorithms for HDR/PDR prostate brachytherapy treatment planning

“…With these latter methods, more dwell positions at the cranial and caudal sides of the prostate are used, which probably caused a small but statistically significant difference. These conformity values were comparable or lower than those found in other publications (4,37), which could be a consequence of a high D 90% in our study or the smaller number of implanted catheters (38). The relatively low conformity could also be related to the peripheral geometry of our implanted catheters.…”

Open MR-Guided High-Dose-Rate (HDR) Prostate Brachytherapy: Feasibility and Initial Experiences Open MR-Guided High-Dose-Rate (HDR) Prostate Brachytherapy

“…Our target coverage (mean V100: 94.2%) compared favorably with those published for HDR implants performed under MRI (mean V100: 83.4-92.9%) [15,16,30] or ultrasound guidance with or without inverse-planning (mean V100: 84.2-97.1%) [31][32][33][34]. Similarly to the results of other groups, our target coverage has markedly improved with the introduction of IPO (V100: DPO: 89% vs. IPO: 96.5%) [16].…”

“…Similarly to the results of other groups, our target coverage has markedly improved with the introduction of IPO (V100: DPO: 89% vs. IPO: 96.5%) [16]. The value of V150 (mean: 43.9%) seems to be a slightly higher when compared with the other published results (mean V150: DPO: 51.7%, Geometrical Optimization: 30.2-42.9%, IPO: 30.2-36.9%) [31,32,34]. This finding could be explained by the use of integrated boost in 5 procedures, the use of DPO in 6 procedures, the relatively low number of inserted catheters and the beginning of our learning curve.…”

Novel tools for stepping source brachytherapy treatment planning: Enhanced geometrical optimization and interactive inverse planning

“…The conformity values presented here were comparable or lower than those found in other publications. 9,19 This could be a consequence of the high target dose (D 90% ), but it could also be related to the peripheral geometry of our implanted catheters as well as the number of catheters, 20 which is relatively low at our institution.…”